User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive6

Hi thank you for your message and I understand what you mean but all the external links I posted were relevant to the subject. In particular I have seen in the Farnese Palace page a link to a website that is exactly like mine. I know that probably a lot of people are adding their websites because they think it would help them in their search engine ranking but that is not my case. I don't understand for example why you deleted the one on Rome page when is a website dedicated to the city with a lot of pictures, prints and interesting information. How can I propose the link again without having it deleted? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegom-08 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but they were links to your site, and thus not at all welcome, as a rule. Your best bet would be to go to the talk page of the article in question, and have a look at our policy on it all at

WP:EL. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am confused honestly, I am working on the site but only because I believe it is a good project. What's the matter if I am working on it or not? I am not paid to do it and the only thing I do is scanning old books and prints for my pleasure. It is not a spam, all the links were relevant and not random ones just to advertise the site. You didn't even explain me the reason why you canceled them but only said they were not appropriate. Is it more important that the link add something to the article or that I am working on it? contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegom-08 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the external link policy again and I hope you were not mentioning the part where it talks about personal sites because it is not my personal site at all the one I linked to. Actually, in the rules it says to link to sites where you can find a copy of a work written by the author subject of the article and that was my case.Diegom-08 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working on the site, then you have a vested interest in the site, even if it is not your personal site. All the prints (that I have seen) on that site can be uploaded to Wikipedia as they are in the public domain. Uploading them to the Wikipedia project allows anyone to use them, and makes a link to the site unnecessary. In short: We'd rather that you added content than links. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you are so sure that Theater J is a "non-notable" theater. It plays host to premieres at a much higher rate than most almost any other not-for-profit theater that there is. I would understand if you pointed that put the template up before I finished the page, I'm quite new at this and saved before I had finished most of the article.

I will note that I have no connection to Theater J beside attending many shows there. I am certain it is a "notable" theater, but I would acknowledge that I may not have done a good job writing the article, so if you tell me where I am lacking, I will certainly try to remedy it. Thanks.

Will do; it's here (or will be in a minute). DS 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help with this McVie article, User:Jonbirch24

Hi there Chase, was wondering if you could give me a hand getting this McVie article back up. Ive got the code saved if you need it, you seem to be quite experienced in editing, and appeared to be rejigging it so that it stayed up but some other chap jumped in and deleted it again, any pointers? cheers, User:jonbirch24 12:05, 25 October 2007 (BST)

Hi Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. While I appreciate that you are keeping an eye out for vandalism and useless pages, I would like to point out that the smiley template {{

First of all, I'll try to ignore your tone. You are obviously upset that "your" template was deleted. When I tagged the article for deletion, it didn't have any tags on it. The content was exactly as shown in the deletion log. I'll transcribe that for you below, just in case you can't access it:

04:02, 16 October 2007 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:):" ‎ (content was: '{{db-nonsense}}Texas.<nowiki>== Spencer Smith == Spencer Smith is an American gangsta and professional playa. He was born May 7, 1991 (age 16) in Pl...')

I have no interest in the template as it was before, but I'd ask that in future you don't jump to conclusions about who edits carelessly. Perhaps you should check the deletion log in future before jumping to conclusions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I see. That was not the original content of the page. I'm sorry that I had not noticed up to now that it seems the page had been vandalized (update: and several times after looking at the page history now that the template has been restored). The template had a smiley image (along with other wiki code) used so that the smiley image could be easily inserted in the talk page. The usefulness of this is what was discussed at the TfD. The fact that I am upset does not stem as much from it being a template I created, but that better research before taking action would have saved a lot of trouble. I am trying to keep my tone civil and cordial while carefully expressing my opinion. If I have sounded condescending I apologize, but I am trying to be clear in my point in hopes of preventing future disagreements. --Stux 04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Sorry if I sounded condescending too - I have (as you can see by my edits to your template) a "personal policy" of coming down on everything, hard. The good stuff, the stuff people care about, usually remains standing. Deletionism at its best. Stay safe, good luck with your TfD - I won't participate for obvious reasons, but good luck all the same! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you proposed deletion of this article based on web searches for "H. Paul Meloche"; however, academic literature is usually referenced by initials only; also material for someone of that era might well not be online. I have removed the prod tag based on his Medline profile [1] (the 29 papers it finds is a lower bound, as Medline's coverage prior to the 1990s is partial) and the notability of the places he's worked. A full AfD debate would seem the fairest way to proceed if you still feel his notability is in question. Regards, Espresso Addict 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; it's here (or will be in a minute). DS 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help with this McVie article, User:Jonbirch24

Hi, could you remove your speedy deletion of the said article. There are quite a lot of google hits for this and it may actually be notable in Washington DC. You could prod it if you still don't agree with it.--WriterListener 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll have a look into it, see if I can notability it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for the barnstar! I wanted to return the favor with another barnstar, but I figured giving the same one back would be kinda tacky. So, instead I just say thank you. I am really glad that from our somewhat terse and tense moment emerged a very amicable and pleasant discourse! I am glad to see people that don't hold grudges around. And like you wrote in the barnstar, we sure could use more of that to make this community nicer! (I would've replied earlier but I'm a bit of a procrastinator.) Take it easy! --Stux 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{

Thanks for letting me know. At the very least, the article needs a clean up! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the words of defense on the talk page. This is

Don't worry - I've had to deal with hoaxers too. If you need a hand with anything, you can catch me on my talk page, or for a swift reply, hit me at hawkertyphoon at hotmail dot com on MSN Messenger (I don't use IRC). I'd be only too glad to help! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed the prod tag from this article? Even if you ignore the spam and COI, it's pure unsourced

The reason behind me removing the speedy tag was so that the article would go to AfD if you felt it necessary. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear - I just wanted it to be researched by chaps with an interest in science, rather than being deleted without any notice. I was just giving the contributor a fair chance at his article being kept - he could be useful, after all, and we don't bite newcomers! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, mate. Nice username! Anyway, I do know but Sebi got there first (see my talk page)! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Secret Page Detective Award
		This user has found NASCAR Fan24's secret page! Congratulations!

Hi. A bit disappointed that you're not aware that tens of thousands of fans are angry with Michael Gambon's performance as Dumbledore. I think it's esssential that we mention the fact that fans and critics alike have critisced him. Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtheamazing (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, but you need to include a link to a newspaper or published book that criticises him - otherwise its potential libel. I'll be happy to include it if you source it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Henry. You recently tagged the page I made for my band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Not_So_Jolly_Rogers) for deletion. I don't understand why you think the page should be deleted. We are a real band, and all the music is real. Can you please explain why we don't get to have a wikipedia page? Thank you. -Henroast 22:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you shouldn't be creating articles about yourself or anything you have a vested interest in - this was shown to you when you made the article in the first place! Secondly, the criteria isn't 'being a real band' - it's being a band that has been noticed nationally, and that can be proved as being a nationally recognised band - ideally, that it's been in the subject of an article in at least two famous regional, or national, independent music magazines. See

WP:MUSIC for the exact guidelines! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies - was re-adding what I thought was PoV vandalism. I'll take it to the talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, O Chevalier. Our new article about that SoCal "phenomenon" is totally unverifiable. Heck, how notable can it be if he didn't even capitalize "pepe?"  :) Thanks. --PMDrive1061 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, it's awful I know. I've just had trouble in the past with some admins who refuse to accept that an article like that is deletable under G1. Look at the wording, it's Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." In other words, it's not nonsense technically - some admins have a problem with this and insist an AFD! I was just letting you know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 07:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Amen. Now the guy's on a screed with me and Jbeach. To top things off, he tried adding the "recipe" to the article on mixed drinks. I've reported him on the vandalism page. No way I see this guy doing anything positive. He's a freaking troll. --PMDrive1061 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You win at Wikipedia :D Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 08:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is not notable? Kowlooner 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't assert notability, as it needs to. See

WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you think it is not? Kowlooner 03:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't understand - it needs to assert notability, which the article clearly doesn't. The question that counts is; "Why is it notable", not "Why isn't it"! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have the best name ever. Hands Down!

i couldn't resist Birthday sig-leave some love 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! have fun on your birthday squire! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbiel, I've removed the speedy deletion template from the above image, as it wasn't really relevant. The image was uploaded by Yeanold Viskersenn, and he has released it under the GFDL. If he has taken the picture himself - as he no doubt has done - then there is no way in which he can prove ownership beyond stating that he does. Let's not get this all kicking off again - take it to RFC if you want, but don't try and delete the image by adding templates in retaliation for someone re-adding the image. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbiel"

The template you removed from Image:Student japes.jpg should not have been a speedy deletion template but rather a notification template of missing source information. Your statement "If he has taken the picture himself" is part of the problem. He should simply state so, there is not need to try to "prove" it, but it should be stated. The license is not enought by itself to state the source. The second problem is that the subject of the image must also agree to the use of the picture under the terms of the posted license or the user is violating the subject's rights which is also a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy. I request that you restore the tag, or replace it with a more appropriate tag if there is one.

Please consider the following: An image summary and image copyright tag are required for all images.

Well there is an image summary, but it fails to provide the required information. Note: the following template or one like it should be use along with the licence

Template:Image information

Also see Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Mini HowTo

Also see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements you will note that "method of contact for the photographer" is also missing from the image summary.

I am suprised that someone with your Wikipedia experience is unaware of this basic rule regarding image uploads.

Note: any further discussion about the image itself should be done on the image discussion page Image talk:Student japes.jpg#Problems with the Summary for this image Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, very much for restoring the page to where I was working. Wildhartlivie 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think we're looking at a user who is likely going to be blocked, so if he keeps it up, just revert back, I'll support you :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't know what you did to that guy, but he don't like you, thats for sure! - Rjd0060 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dropped a large edit on the Dirigo High School entry today. I'm curious how you ended up finding your way there. We are currently learning about wikis and wikipedia and are wondering what attracts someone to work a particular article. mnolette

Hi, you commented on my post on discussion page regarding the proposed deletion of this article. You will see that I have posted a copy of the comment on the AfD page as well. As can be seen from the text of the article, I wasn't posting a 'vote' either for or against the article in the discussion page, I just like to post to both places so it's easier for readers considering the AfD to get background info, that's all. Thanks for the tip, though. Posthocergopropterhoc 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I have prodded the article. I really couldn't see any claim to notability. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grab some articles from the BBC and slap them up on the talk page to quell you concerns :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. It's interesting to read some of the comments on the Express and Star in light of the BBC report. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "memorial to Fred" they were on about in our paper is going to go ahead if it's true, lol Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at your AN/I request, as it has been marked as resolved. Tiptoety 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you think I am engaged in an editing war, I assure you that I am not. The ones engaged in and should be duly warned, are the ones who keep editing out my posts, not me. I sourced my editing. It may not be to your liking, but it was a verifiable and reliable source for sure. Now please explain to me, why others are allowed to continually violate the three edit rule on the Southern Baptist page but you warn me that I don't have to violate it to be guilty of it, quite an ignorant statement on your part I would think. The fact that there have been thousands of Southern Baptist preachers accused of child molestation, rape and other sexual crimes is a well known fact, just look it up google, all kinds of reports on it. I picked one source, a reliable source. Now please kindly return and revert your edit of my editing please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok for them to break the rule about 3 reverts if they are eliminating the bad things about the SBC and their complete and utter lack of concern about sexual abuse in their church but it is not ok for me to post that same sexual abuse edit three times? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As far as reliable sources, the source I posted was from newspapers and the articles about those who were convicted or confessed. I could put thousands more on there where they have not been convicted, plead guilty or confessed. I chose not to do that. The one on the ELCA article was just as unsourced as mine, but yet I was warned not to eliminate that another time, sound fair to you, it should not, but then again when has the SBC ever been for fairness.

In fact Eugenecurry reverted my articles at least three times, and nothing has happened to him. Additionally my article was reliably sourced by neutral newspapers, if one had taken the time to actually read the articles. Did you????? I did take it to the Talk page and that article was deleted by OrangeMike, is something being done to him in regards to the Three Revert rule, of course not. Also, the Miami Herald may wish to know that you consider them an unreliable source, makes me wonder what you may think of Fox News, but I already know the answer to that one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you gave this advice to Eugenecurry as well:"Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, and come back to this when you're willing to approach the subject in a neutral way." I am approaching the subject in a neutral way, my source on the article was reliable, as reliable if not more than FOX News is. In fact I would take the Miami Herald, one of the sources for my edit, over the FOX news any day of the week. To condone someone purging my post on a Talk page, after you advise me to take it there, and not replacing it, shows a bias towards those who choose to ignore or condone the sexual abuse in the SBC, is that what you are doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it has been shown that that does no good at all, but thanks for the unfriendly advice. I source my material and it is taken down, I follow your advice and post on the Talk page, and it is taken down, and that edit defended by you, even though you were the one telling me to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the {{db-attack}} template on your user page is not a real request, and I've removed it. If you really want it deleted, let me know and I'll oblige.--Fabrictramp 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was added in bad faith by GRRE (talk · contribs), because I've spotted his repost of deleted material and tagged it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report about

Apologies, I got my windows confuddled. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) No problem, do it all the time myself! Cheers TigerShark 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw you responded to my post about taking it up with an ANI. MY question is what is an ANI? Thanks. Hardlyreared 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is the complaint you made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's not the best place to go to complain about a user, instead the accepted practice is to just drop it and get on with editing. What's your other account you've mentioned? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to intrude - was this you? It was done by an IP is all, and I don't think i've done anything except leave messages on your page? I haven't edited it recently AFAIK! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No intrusion at all. I would like to know who is forging my name on one of your pages. Personally I believe that Wikipedia should prohibit IP address posting. Since anyone can register and a valid email address is not required, requiring registration does not restrict anyone from posting; but thats just my POV. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It is interesting that this was the only post ever from that IP address. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preceeding two posts were copied from my talk page as it appears the relpy may not have been noticed. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem knowledgeable in this area, and I've noticed you've dealt with this before. I am new to the uploading of images issue. However, I've noticed an image that has been uploaded and being used on an article claiming that it is a fair-use image and a screenshot of a television program. In reality, it is not a screenshot, rather an image taken by a photographer placed on website with a policy stating "(Company Name) does not issue licenses for internet use." Obviously, this detail was not in plain view but was easy to find. How would I go about this? Again, I'm new to the images issues. I hope you can shed some light on this. Thank you. —Evaglow 04:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the image? I'll have a look at it - It may still be fair use, but it might need flagging. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HeatherStevens.jpg. I found the licensing copyright at http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/cliplicensing.html#2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaglow (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When free replacements can be found, it is contra to policy to replace them with non-free images. --Bogwoppit 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looks as if you've got an agenda to push. In any case, you're violating the 3rr. Stop it :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR states that an editor can perform more than three edits to "remove clear violations of ... non-free content policies". I have acted correctly in this case. --Bogwoppit 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It'd be better if you went to consensus or the talk page in question rather than constant reverting and shouting about policies! But whatever, no harm done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. On the other hand, all I originally did was upload a lower resolution version of a non-free image which had been in the article for yonks, in order to satisfy guidelines on non-free image use. 'Twas another editor who decided that a completely different image was necessary. --Bogwoppit 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then I see the number of edits you've made compared with the reputation the other editor has... You can see why I joined in on his side ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sergio here from Italy. I write to you because - I suppose - you're an administrator and I need advice. Someone vandalized my userpage on en.wiki some days ago (diff) though I noticed only yesterday. I guess it's late to report, yet I'd like to know whether there's something I can do - or you. The vandalism on the english user page comes from an Italian IP address and I strongly suppose it's the same person who used to vandalize my userpage on it.wiki before I got it uneditable for unsubscribed users. If you have time to reply please write here.

Regards,

What led you to conclude that the edit was vandalism to be reverted? --Orange Mike 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, in this case, I was reverting the user, who was spamming his own links all over the site. I used Twinkle to revert all his "External Links" edits, but obviously didn't check closely enough at the individual ones! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag, as I think there's just enough notability claim to overcome that hurdle. However, feel free to list at AfD. --Dweller 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading